Political Discussions
To everyone who wants to see Obama's Birth Certificate. Whine less.
Posted by CrisRo • 11/28/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: obama, politics
Really? So you would say you and your "I saw it on the internet or in the news" are more qualified, and as such can demand proof of something like that. Annoying.
No, I'm not a liberal or a conservative. I'm an economist, my central concern is the overall well being of our nation, terrorism activities, war and it's diplomatic relations with other countries. I'm pretty sure if anyone who was in the position to see it in his dossier would have raised the red flag a long time ago.
But seriously, isn't there something more important to talk about...like I dunno...economy, war, political ties, terrorist threats, alternative energy, raising the standards of our education, ending racism and prejudice, reducing violence... I mean, those are just a few that comes to mind.
User Comments
-
I've just been sick about reading this in the paper, hearing it on the radio, and seeing it on the news. Seriously, it's so annoying. Do we as a nation have that little faith in our government?
If so, we needed more than an election to fix it, and since I don't hear the majority shouting revolution, I shouldn't hear them shouting at all.-
It's always ironic when someone comes and writes about how sick he/she is of hearing about something in a new thread he/she's started on that topic. Shakes the credibility at bit.
That said, I think that you underrate the importance of the issue dramatically. If, in fact, those who claim that Obama couldn't produce a valid U.S. birth certificate because he wasn't born in the U.S. were correct, it would be a very serious issue on a number of levels: a huge and long-term fraud perpetrated on the American public, an unprecedented Constitutional dilemma regarding the appropriate means of proceeding from this point, and a host of other issues.
As to this: "Do we as a nation have that little faith in our government?"....I should think that those of us with functional brains DEFINITELY have "that little faith" in our government. If you have a few years to spare, I'll give you a partial list of the reasons.
-
-
Past is past. There's nothing we can do to alter it. Besides,OBAMA is now a duly elected president, so no matter what issue we will throw against him in reference to his past is simply MOOT and ACADEMIC. So, let's give him the floor and let him prove himself not only to his fellow AMERICANS but to whole world as well.-
"Besides,OBAMA is now a duly elected president, so no matter what issue we will throw against him in reference to his past is simply MOOT and ACADEMIC"
This is inaccurate, by the way.
-
-
I don't know if i agree..
If you recall, there was a huge blowup about the birth certificate of Chineese Gymnasts, debating whether or not they are old enough to participate. IF that is newsworthy, then the same question for something as significant as the US presidency should be too.
The Us Constitution have certain requirements for the president. Age, and being a native born are two of them.
If the "duly elected" president was indeed not born here, then we have a dual problem. For one, he is not allowed to be the president without a change in the constitution. Second, that would make him an illegal immigrant.
I for one don't think that there is anything to this, but I respect the right of those that do to have their concerns satisfied.-
Hopefully we screen our next president more than we screen the female Chinese olympic gymnast team. My point being, is I imagine that the powers that be scrupulously examined our president elect.
Yes, I know about the age and birth requirement. I assumed everyone did, hence why I said "I'm pretty sure if anyone had seen anything like that in his dossier, a red flag would have went up" -
1. The issue with the Chinese Gymnasts was not a 'huge blowup' and it was resolved quickly and calmly.
2. While Barrack Obama has a birth certificate showing he was born within the United States, John McCain does not. -
yes very big problem if this is true -
John McCain doesn't? What did you make that up
-
Nope ... John McCain's birth certificate shows he was born outside of the United States, in the Canal Zone. Earlier this year, the congress passed a resolution stating that was good enough to make him a natural citizen.
-
If his parents were American, then that automatically makes him American. He would also be a citizen of the country he was born in to.
-
I would also like to add to what theboyjlowe said, that McCain was born at the Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, Panama, which was under U.S. control at the time. And I believe any U.S. base is considered American soil. -
But ... What is "natural born?" That's the question the Congress answered.
-
-
Yes some questioned that he was not native born but in fact he was native born having birth in Hawaii. This is basically indisputable evidence at this point, but I think that some haven't caught up to this yet and still question it. Well Obama is native and so he can and WILL be president.
As far as csiunatc said I agree though if we can question Chinese children's age we should most definitely question the natures involving the Presidency.
It is free speech as well, and so long as by questioning Obama's birth doesn't cause riots or violence it's entirely constitutional and there isn't anything any of us can do about it.
The best thing you can do is stop listening and try to drown out the broken record. -
This right-wing complaining is just background noise now. They have no power any more! WHOOOOOOOO-HOOOOOOooooooooooooo!!!!-
We listened to the left whine and complain like a child for 8 years. it was absolutely ridiculous and now you complain about us. Ha how ironic.
-
Yea.... whine and complain about fiscal irresponsibility, an unjust and mismanaged war, disregard for the law, rampant cronyism, etc, etc, etc. -
which your party persists in to.
-
-
At first, I was interested in this simply because I'm a journalist and I wanted to find out more about it. Once I did a little digging on my own, I did discover that there was nothing to it.
A lot of conservatives complained and moaned about it and even Hillary Clinton supporters did the same thing too. It was weird to see those two groups agree on something like that.
However, the whole incident made me glad I am an independent. Just like the last couple of years of hearing Democrats saying that President Bush wasn't their president because they didn't elect him in 2004, I can't stomach hearing Republicans moaning about Obama's birth certificate or how he isn't their president because they didn't elect him.
It's time for everyone to suck it up and deal with it. President Bush is our president and President-Elect Barack Obama will be ours. Maybe the two whiny groups can stop their childish, spiteful comments and come together and work to resolve the huge problems this country is facing.-
100% correct
-
I doubt that is going to happen anytime soon.
-
Interesting, no one on the left seemed eager to "come together" and support Bush. No, it was 8 years of bi-ch and moan. What makes anyone think that Obama wouldn't recieve the same treatment from the right?
-
Just like the last couple of years of hearing Democrats saying that President Bush wasn't their president because they didn't elect him in 2004, I can't stomach hearing Republicans moaning about Obama's birth certificate or how he isn't their president because they didn't elect him.
The problem with Bush has been, he has only been president of the right-wing segment of our population. His attitude is (with almost every issue) that you're ether with us or you're against us. He had an agenda and ideology that he was going to pursue no matter what. Those who chose to follow blindly have contributed to the economic and military disasters created by Bush's policies.
The election two years ago showed that people were finally waking up to the disaster that was the Bush administration. Democrats had been critical of the policies for many years. It wasn't because "Bush wasn't their president;" It was because of the damage being inflicted on our country.
Those who love our country more than whatever political party they happen to be affiliated with have the responsiblity to be critical when our leaders promote policies that hurt our country. That's what it means to live in a free country. -
Bush has gone with the left for much of his Presidency.
-
Bush has gone with the left for much of his Presidency.
feguIkiegfuil yjuwgf;wg ; 9482y9482hy;y98heo9gyv;o9y84vg;
^ That would be me, bashing my head on the keyboard because words cannot describe the utter nonsense you believe 0_o -
Bush has gone with the left for much of his Presidency.
Ok, ok... Got some sort of a citation for that?
-
-
Just the last 8 years as a citation.
-
Seriously, it's obviously on the front of your mind. You've got to be able to come up with some sort of example. You can't just say whatever crazy thing comes to your mind and not be prepared to back it up.
-
Well the Democrats covered up Fannie and Freddie Mac, while the Republicans tried to fix the solution. Bush obviously favored towards Fannie and Freddie Mac and the democrats. Bush has approved outrageous spending sprees for the government and we all know the Republicans aren't in sole charge of that. He has not just gone with radical Republicans, he has gone with the left to.
I am going to start asking you to submit a citation for everything if you keep this up. -
Well the Democrats covered up Fannie and Freddie Mac, while the Republicans tried to fix the solution.
And in which alternate reality did this occur?
-
-
-
This issue actually raises quite an interesting question about our Constitutional government that hardly anyone mentions in the back and forth about the birth certificate: what would happen if it were determined now, after the election and before the inauguration, that Obama was NOT eligible for the Presidency?-
Well, Although im not sure, i don't think that the constitution says he can't run. I think it says he can't be president. In which case he would never be allowed to take the oath, I guess that means Biden '09.
Then there is of course the problem of it came out after he took the oath, in which case it would be an immediate removal, and in with Biden.
Providing that he indeed wasn't Born on US Soil you end up in a different problem.
His mother is American, so by default he would have the citizenship RIGHTS, but he wouldn't be a citizen since he never got the papers through INS or USCIS as they are called now. That would mean that not even changing the law to allow naturalized citizens would help, since he would be an illegal alien by definition. Which means that legally he should be deported to the country of birth. Where he would have to wait until his wife can petiton for his immigration status.
So should it come out that he indeed wasn't born on american soil. The mess would be huge. -
The mess would be huge, because it's not at all clear that, pre-inauguration, Biden WOULD become President. If Obama were already in office, chances are good that he would, although I would expect challenges. But in this period in which Obama has not yet been inaugurated, Biden is not yet Vice-President, and as such that is no clear provision for him to succeed to the Presidency.
-
NO you are right, it could easily be argued that McCain would get the win because he is the closest candidate with the required prerequisites.
The real interesting point here is ... would Bush remain in office until it was sorted out?
-
-
Well the evidence of Obama's birth and citizenship in the U.S. is pretty much irrefutable at this point, so the continued accusations by some to the contrary are bordering on the "Soviet Russia destroyed the Challenger Space Shuttle with a secret laser satellite" variety of conspiracy theory.
In fact, I can’t think of anyone with any degree of credibility who’s still making this claim. I haven’t even seen it come up recently in BC, including among the respondents to this post (a fact about which I am somewhat surprised).
I see your frustration though. The fact that anyone is devoting even the scantest of energy to furthering this lunacy is cause for exasperation.-
I Agree with it being unlikely, But to call it "irrefutable" is a little much.
-
OpinionStream, what do you consider the "irrefutable" evidence? I agree that it's unlikely that anyone will demonstrate that Obama is not a "natural born citizen", but I'm curious about what "irrefutable" proof you've seen.
-
Erik and Total Attorneys – I say “pretty much irrefutable because it is very likely that Obama’s natural born citizenship claim will survive any legal challenge. As you know, Obama has produced a Hawaii birth certificate. Further, the Director of Hawaii’s Department of Health – the agency responsible for maintaining Hawaii birth records – has personally attested both to viewing the birth certificate and to its authenticity. (that fact is in the last paragraph of this article: firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/26/1689515.aspx) Now, at trial, the combination of the birth record and official testimony concerning its validity would lead the court to take “judicial notice” that Obama’s birth certificate is an authentic state record, meaning that to invalidate the birth certificate, a claimant would have to rebut the judicial presumption of authenticity. Don’t underestimate how high a bar that is.
The only possible way I can think of to refute the authenticity of that birth certificate 47 years later is for a claimant to produce a conflicting birth record and prove that that record is not a forgery.
Now let’s assume someone could find such a document somewhere in the world (and we both know that if it existed it would have already surfaced). It would take months (perhaps years) to locate it, and by then Obama would already be president. No judge worth his salt is going to stay the inauguration so a lawyer can go on an international fishing expedition. Further, the claimant would likely seek to introduce a record from either Kenya or Indonesia and – no disrespect to those countries – a U.S. attorney would be able to quickly make mince meat of the validity of any document produced from those countries because of their relative lack of reliable governance and record keeping apparati vs. the U.S.’s 47 years ago. So, the likelihood of establishing the authenticity of a contrary record is very low indeed.
And even if the authenticity of the contrary record was established, it would not invalidate the Hawaii record, it would merely set up a question of fact as to which document was the more reliable record. Suffice to say that for a number of reasons, both legal and political, a judge faced with this highly unlikely question would choose the U.S. document.
So again, Obama’s claim to citizenship is pretty much irrefutable at this point. -
Edited - removed
-
-
Can you please show me the official document released by Obama? From a reputable source?
The ones i find are not complete (unstamped unsigned)-
There is a photo on fact check...I had the link in one of these threads somewhere.
The real question here is:
Who here believes that Obama was able to win the nomination of his party, and actually able to accept the nomination of president, without a thorough background check completed by the government, FBI or secret service (or all three) complete with a check to make sure he is 100% eligible to serve as president?
To think otherwise puts a HUGE conspiracy theory out there that even conspiracy theorists don't want to touch
-
Well Erik, here's the link to factcheck.org's pictures of the Birth Certificate.
www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
edit to add: Anok also raises a good question, one I've raised in other fora, but we don't even need to get to that level of detail because, as I said, he's got a legitimate birth certificate and thus, his U.S. citizenship is pretty much irrefutable. Anok's point does lend credence to my position that the nut jobs continuing to argue this issue are bordering on the "Soviet Russia destroyed the Challenger Space Shuttle with a secret laser satellite" variety of conspiracy theorists. -
Well thats exactly what i'm talking about.
This is a picture of an incomplete certificate. And a lot of pictures of signatures and stamps that doesn't show the document they belong to.
To put it differently, if i tried that one with any agency to get for instance a CCW, it would be denied.
Check your own Certificate, and you'll find stamps and signatures on the FRONT. of it.
Also, found this on another site.
1. No attending physician signature or license number
2. No address for the attending physician or hospital
3. No parent signature
4. No parent DOB or age of parent or parent place of birth.
5. Father’s race would not be “African”, that is country of origin. Race would be black or Negro (1960’s)
6. Was this a single birth or multiple birth.
7. No Registrars name or signature.
Yes, i think that these discrepancies at least are enough for people to question it.
And i'd like to see it on for instance Obamas site. If it is indeed his, then why isn't be producing it.
Seems funny to me, it would be such an easy thing to do, but he keeps dodging it.
And if you think that THAT is a big conspiracy, how would you explain that you lefties seem all to eager to believe that Bush was behind 9/11.. lol -
www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/has_obamas_birth_certificate_been_disclosed....
Hawaii state law forbids the release of birth or marriage certificates to anyone but the persons named in the documents or their immediate relatives. This copy carries a date stamp of "Jun 6 - 2007" (which has bled through from the reverse side), and is, therefore, probably a copy obtained by Obama himself at that time.
I'll ask again - does anyone actually believe that Obama's place of birth wasn't checked before being elected president? -
Let me ask you this.
If... for whatever reason this was overlooked.. We DO have a human factor at play here you know.
Do you think that the FBI would come out and say.. OOPS sorry peeps.. missed that one?
Or do you think they would keep their mouths shut? -
In the history of our government?
The agencies would all blame each other
However, I'm seriously doubting they would miss that one.
I mean, that would be a HUGE thing to mess up. Like, allowing a 12 year old to win the presidency kind of messed up
However, Obama does have a passport, and you must show your birth certificate to the government to get a passport - so, I'm thinking he's covered. The government knows where he was born, one way or another. -
Today you do, but 40 years ago, his mother could have gotten his first passport for him without it. And once he has one, a replacement never has to have the BC attached to it as far as i know.
and you are right, it would be a huge mess, which is why i am certain that they would never voluntarily admit to having missed it.
I still think that Obama publishing it on his website would shut the argument up. which makes me wonder why he doesn't. -
That's true.
Perhaps he doesn't want to even entertain the idea that he isn't a natural born citizen? Perhaps that like so many of us, he doesn't want to put out full, private, and confidential information on the internet for all to see and use?
I wouldn't publish my birth certificate online, would you? -
I'm sorry but that explanation just doesn't cut it when you are asked to prove your eligibility to be the president of a country.
I think the BC is the least we can ask for.
IN fact, no, i don't think that it is neccesary that he does this online. I think it is sufficient that the surpreme court allows the lawsuit, and he is forced to provide the court with the proof.
I'd be more than satisfied with that. -
I think he already provided the proof to the officials that needed it though.
It won't go to court unless there is sufficient evidence to indicate he may not be a citizen, or the certificate was forged.
I'm thinking that's not likely. -
Erik - 47 years ago, people were actually arse backwards enough to believe that "African" was a race. Just like they were dumb enough to legislate racial inferiority.
And, seriously, I can't believe we're even having this discussion. factcheck.org has no agenda in this. It's parent organization was founded by and is still headed by a former Reagan administration official who endorsed McCain. They certainly have no interest in perpetrating a liberal fraud. Further, the certificate satisfies the relevant Hawaii birth certification laws in place at the time Obama was born. It may not have all the information on it that you want, but your desires in this regard are irrelevant (as are ours). The document is legal and its authenticity is, as I've repeatedly stated, irrefutable. It is not "incomplete". It has the information required to validate it under Hawaii law in place 47 years ago.
Further, again, Hawaii officials have vouched for its authenticity. The evidence already produced will be rock solid in court (see my explanation above). Regarding Obama providing his birth certificate to satisfy right-wing nut-jobs - I fail to see why a presidential candidate should take actions to satisfy the lunatic fringe of society that will find fault with whatever he does (even if he invents a time machine and takes these wackos on a guided tour of his delivery). Besides, what President in recent memory (besides McCain) has had to publicly establish his claim of citizenship when running for office?
And claiming that someone made a slip-up is shear speculation. We should be above shear speculation. The fact is, as I've explained above, his claim of citizenship is pretty much irrefutable. Everyone would be well served leaving this non-issue alone. -
Oh, and I forgot to add - Obama has long since placed a copy of his birth certificate on his website: fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
edit to add: Further, politifact had one of its Hawaiian born correspondents check their own certificate to compare - It's identical to Obama's.
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certifica... -
IN fact, no, i don't think that it is neccesary that he does this online. I think it is sufficient that the surpreme court allows the lawsuit, and he is forced to provide the court with the proof.
I'd be more than satisfied with that.
I doubt you would. The idea that someone could be elected even to the senate with a false ID is completely insane and might very well be a symptom of some sort of paranoid dementia.
If you'll buy that the president-elect is walking around with a fake ID, you'll buy anything. You've heard of the concept of "too good to be true?" Why doesn't the concept of "too bad to be true" set off your BS sensors?
The whole thing is stupid beyond words and smacks of sore-loserism. -
If Hawaiian officials have vouched for it..
You mean that we should just take their word over evidence.
Isn't that kinda like.... "I did NOT have sexual relations with that Woman"
And what is interesting is that the "fightthesmears" posting is an incomplete certificate. Like i said above, that one wouldn't get me a drivers license in this state. -
Well, Erik. The word of the relevant Hawaiian official is, in fact, evidence. Whereas the Clinton quote you used is, from an evidenciary standpoint, a statement in favor of a pecuniary (or, in this case "get my arse out of a bad situation") interest, and therefore inherently untrustworthy, the word of a ranking official from a state agency with statutory authority over the record in question that that record is authentic will cause a court to take judicial notice that the record is authentic. So according to the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Hawaiian official's statement is evidence.
And again, it really doesn't matter what you or I may think we can or cannot do with the document Obama produced. Our sentiments don't change the fact that this Certificate was issued by Hawaii and bears all the necessary information to get a passport from the State Department and, also apparently a state I.D. from Illinois.
We are really engaging in an academic argument here, one which I'm rather surprised that you're keeping up, unless it's for shear intellectual curiosity. Surely you don't really think for one minute that Obama's not a natural born citizen. If this is just an intellectual exercise, I'm your Huckleberry . -
Ok let me get this straight.
You think that a court will accept the argument: "The document exists because I say it does. But I am not goign to provide it." From anyone just because of their TITLE?
I sincerely doubt that one.
And yes, Like I've said before. I don't think that this is much of anything. What I DON'T like is that those that WANT this concern satisfied are being ignored. It is a valid question, and one that Obama could easily set to rest.
The whole "i'm not going to entertain this " response just isn't good enough. And I don't like the presedence it sets.
And no, that document, the one "produced" does NOT contain all the neccesary information to get anything. It is missing the signatures and stamps that are neccesary to authenticate it. -
f Hawaiian officials have vouched for it..
You mean that we should just take their word over evidence.
Their word is evidence.
But, as I say, nothing on Earth would satisfy you. It's much more comforting to think there's some insane conspiracy than to accept the fact that the American people rejected conservatism decisively. -
Erik - I think you and I are both talking around something here, Erik, but I won't point it out since you haven't
Anyway, that's not my argument at all. The document is virtually in your face (from the factcheck.org link). We're not talking about a document that hasn't been produced but that someone is trying to authenticate anyway. We're talking about a document that has been produced, has been authenticated already, and that can further be authenticated - from an evidentiary perspective - by the testimony in question. I really feel like a broken record here - the testimony of the Hawaiian official is evidence because he's attesting to the authenticity of a document that's already been produced.
And you're partially right - the fightthesmears.com copy would not be acceptable because it would be regarded as a photocopy (since we could only get it by printing the .pdf file from our computers) and state officials wouldn't accept a photocopy for reasons you mentioned. The document that factcheck.org looked at, however, does meet all the requirements that I mentioned above.
Now to this question of satisfying inquiries: Your congressman doesn't even govern based on your personal desires, so you should hardly expect that the President of the U.S. would. As an aside, imagine all the information Bush would have had to produce had he heeded the ramblings of his citizen detractors!
Anyway, you know (and you know that you know) that the nut-jobs propagating this particular nonsense are not doing so out of a genuine interest in getting to "the truth". No one, not you, not me, and certainly not the President of the U.S., should be required to answer the nonsensical ramblings and straw-man accusations of people who are really just trying to discredit him/her. As I said above with my time machine example, nothing (and I mean NOTHING) Obama does will ever satisfy these people that Obama deserves to be President. Facts have never gotten in the way of people Bent on believing a conspiracy theory, as the persistence of this mess demonstrates. These are not people who deserve to be entertained.
-
-
Did CSI just postulate that the Bush administration could be so incompetent that they would mess up proving that a favored candidate of the opposing party was not born in America and thus not eligible to win the Presidency?-
Did i postulate that misstakes can be made, regardless of who is the president. Absolutely..
Are you postulating that no misstakes will be made by any gov't agency under Obama? lol -
Dude, that's a big stonking mistake if you let your political opposition win the presidency because the government that you're in charge of couldn't be arsed to do a simple background check. That's more than a clerical error or misjudging data or hiring someone who doesn't work out. That's like you hiring me to wash your car and instead I stuff it full of dead kittens and set it on fire. And you still pay me.
-
ROFLMAO...that was hilarious renalfailure
-
Interesting analogy, I see that you confuse mistakes with intentional acts. Do I have to educate you on the difference or can you look it up yourself?
-
Like you've never set anything on fire by mistake...
-
And to pack the car full of kittens was an oopsie as well? or are dead kittens soemthing you usually wash your car with?
-
-
...what have I done..I've created a monster..is this topic seriously that interesting or worth debating?
-
Wrong spot.
-
Damn you!
-
-
crisro, you have created an obamanation...
-
And no, that document, the one "produced" does NOT contain all the neccesary information to get anything. It is missing the signatures and stamps that are neccesary to authenticate it.
...said the expert on freakin' Hawaiian birth certificates. Seriously, you've gone around the bend. You're officially paranoid, delusional, and crazier than a sack of cats.-
wp again.... how hard could it be to put a "reply" function on the last post in a thread?
-
-
This may be of interest
houseonahillorg.blogspot.com/2008/12/i-just-woke-up-to-news-that-lawsuit-ha...
IMHO it's time for the Republicans to get over it and get on with helping to rebuild America. Obama won fair and square. Joining with their other countrymen to help their country rise from the ashes and make the changes required is behavior that can be lauded and applauded. Whining like a dogs in a manger, hair splitting and frivolous court challenges deserves a HUGE thumbs down and a resounding BOO! because they will not result in nation building - they are disruptive, destructive and self serving acts - get over it!-
As always.
LEfties have been screaming for 8 years. But now they say that those that don't agree with Obama's policies should just shut up and help them get their will done.
Not likely, It is the responsibility of anyone who disagrees to voice their concerns. And I for one hope that the voices of Conservatives will be loud and clear over the next 4 years. -
Again...
Righties keep talking about how Democrats and Liberals complained about the Bush/Cheney administration. The difference is that we had several concrete screw ups to reference. You guys are complaining about things that haven't even happened yet. -
AGAIN!
What about the screams that Bush was going to repeal Roe v. Wade, That was pretty prevalent, And as far as i know, that hasn't happened either.
Before he took office, Lefties were still screaming about stuff that hadn't happened yet, they just changed what they screamed about as time went on. -
I'll give you that one, although many in the Republican party are still working towards that goal. Do you not think that they would attempt it if they had more conservative judges on the Supreme Court? Did Bush ever claim he would not be interested in overturning Roe v. Wade given the chance?
Obama isn't claiming he want's socialism. He's not claiming he wants to relax U.S. security. He's not claiming he wants a weaker Israel. He's not claiming many of the things you guys forecast happening.
I didn't care for Bush, but I wasn't out bashing him until he began making stupid policy decisions. I wasn't trying to relate the every bit of bad news of the day to his impending Presidency. -
LEfties have been screaming for 8 years. But now they say that those
that don't agree with Obama's policies should just shut up and help
them get their will done.
Yeah, it really sucks when it happens to you, doesn't it? Wait until we get around to questioning your patriotism and saying you hate America.
You won't like that much either.
-
-
I'll even agree that Obama is born in Hawaii as it would have otherwise already been exposed and he would have been made ineligible for the presidency and we wouldn't be where we are at now.
Likewise drop the subject and move onto a topic with Obama that is substantial, as in having legitimate substance. No reason to argue over nothing as it gets no one anywhere except irritable.-
Amen to that.
-
WP
-
"Likewise drop the subject and move onto a topic with Obama that is substantial, as in having legitimate substance. No reason to argue over nothing as it gets no one anywhere except irritable."
Sounds sensible doesn't it? -
But according to you, no topic has substance because he hasn't done anything yet? lol
Oh besides causing the upswing on the market last week, Which is btw still down 1100 points since his election...
were down 250 so far today... When are you going to make a post about how Obama is wrecking the stock market.. lol
(ducks and runs) -
Is Barack Obama president today?! Is Barack's administration running the show?! Did I miss the early swearing in?!
I do believe your beloved Bush is still the Commander in Chief. What's he up to these days?!
Get a clue. -
Then how come you said the 800 up the other day was his doing.. Shouldn't we give that one to Bush too then?
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/dows-biggest-2-day-run-since-87
Your exact words. "...this reflects well on the incoming administration,"
Which is it, should we be celebrating Bush for the 5 day rally last week, or would you blame Obama for the dump as well?
Or would you just rather stick with. "If it's bad, Obama isn't president yet.. If it's good, we can say it speaks well for his administration"..
Just seems a little unbalanced to me... -
You obviously didn't get it AND you're taking my words out of context. Full statement:
"Although this reflects well on the incoming administration, I don't think any of us should be claiming absolute knowledge of future outcomes based on daily news bites.
The post was in response to all the 'sky is falling' posts by you and a few others. You were the first one out of the gate with an OP that blamed Obama's first press conference for the sudden drop in the market.
I then went on to say:
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/dows-biggest-2-day-run-since-87#...
Continue to interpret the news of the day to your liking. Your agenda is obvious to many and your arguments are getting shallower and shallower. -
Yes I do get it. And yes i did point out that Obamas press conference took the DOW for a serious drop.
I was also quick to give Obama his Dues when he appointed Geithner...
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/great-news-for-banks#comment_681...
So yes, I do believe that the market is reacting to his statements and decisions. But in contrast to you, At least I'm big enough to give it credit both ways, whereas you seem more interested in blaming Bush when things go down and hailing Obama when it goes up. -
You are one dense MF.
The DOW ended that day UP 200+ points, but I never saw you acknowledge that. It really didn't matter to me because unlike you I do not believe the market is currently making adjustments based on every move Obama makes.
I will acknowledge Obama's screw-ups just as I have Bush's, but I don't anticipate the amount you seem to.
Why not take libertycast1's advise and move on to something more constructive. -
So now you assume that you should be telling me what to do. If it bothers you, then why are you reading and writing in this discussion to begin with?
Why don't you try to manage yourself, and I'll choose what discussions I should participate in without you. -
Wouldn't they require an actual copy whether already on hand or having to be ordered to actually get this kind of job.
You have to do it for a factory jobs or any other lower paying job, why not the most prominent position in the US.
So what we see may not be the best copy, but I'm sure the government has fully taken care of this issue.
The factcheck article.
www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
If you want to order his birth certificate yourself it will cost you $15.
www.vitalchek.com/
-
-
Ok, this is why I don't like having nothing but an internet scan as "proof"
i334.photobucket.com/albums/m432/csiunatc/Bogus.jpg
Having a non descript scan of a document online, but letting no one see the real document in person proves very little...-
Erik - would you believe my employer even blocks access to photobucket?! *bangs head against computer screen repeatedly* I can't see what you're trying to show us. Care to give a brief synopsis?
In general, I'd comment that since no politician in the history of the U.S. has been required to put his/her birth certificate on display in the Capital gallery, I don't see how Obama could give each of us an in person view of his birth certificate, unless all 300 million of us lined up and walked by the White House gates on Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. one-by-one as he held it up with that trademark smile.
In the absence of such impractical steps, I think providing it to a fact-gathering group that everybody regards as impartial is beyond good enough, particularly since even that has rarely, if ever, been done by a presidential candidate.
And again I'll say - we're not talking about a "non descript scan of a document" (at least with regard to the factcheck.org article). We're talking about actual pictures of an authentic Hawaiian state record, the accuracy of the underlying language and meaning of which has been backed by relevant Hawaiian state officials. I'm telling you, with this evidence, it's quite obvious why all courts that have faced challenges with regard to Obama's citizenship have thrown the cases out (not to mention other constitutional issues with those cases).
Really, this is like those people who persistently demanded that McCain produce his medical records even in the face of medical evidence that the likelihood of him keeling over from melanoma was quite small, and who started a "cover up" theory when he allowed journalists access to the documents for like a couple hours but didn't allow them to take pictures or make photocopies or otherwise remove the documents from where his campaign housed them. What McCain had already done was far more than enough – allow an unnecessary intrusion into his personal records. But nothing could be enough to satisfy people who were really just guided by an agenda, not by an actual fact gathering mission. -
Yes prima facie, the Factcheck.org would seem good enough..
But for an organization like that, they sure made some serious misstakes in providing the proof.
The document is shown without stamps, which every real copy has. The stamps that are shows up close are never shown as part of the whole document. Even if they were on the back of it (which they in some cases can be) how come there wasn't two pictures taken of that document, with the back showing the stamps.
What we have there, is a picture of a BC that has no stamps on it. (they could be on the back but we don't know because we haven't seen the back of it.. ) and pictures of a lot of stamps that could basically come from any document. That is my problem. If you consider all the facts that "moon landing" conspiracy theorists can come up with. Something this incomplete is just one big hole.
Just pointing out that the way they presented this is not in any way close to "good" practise to create the reliability.
As far as the "medical records" go. Obama still hasn't produced anything but a letter from his physician. No one has been allowed to see the actual records, Not even for a couple of hours. So That hardly puts Obama in any position of comparative strength. He is after all a smoker in the Prime for a heartattack.
The document i put on photobucket is a quickly put together example of how easy it would be to create something that looks official enough. ALthough mine is more than a little "tweaked".
You are right, but should a verified document containing everything be produced to an agency that has no reason to cover any misstakes. (Surpreme court would be the ultimate). Then i'm sure that none but the worst conspiracy theorists would be enclined to keep this up. -
Erik - I'll grant you the point about poor picture taking on the part of factcheck.org. However, I'll again state that they are a trusted impartial news source founded by a conservative organization that is headed by a McCain supporter. These guys have absolutely zero interest in helping Obama perpetrate a fraud, so I'm willing to go out on a limb and assume that even if they didn't photograph the back of the document, they have the journalistic integrity to not be lying about the close-up shot being an actual shot from the back of the document.
By the way, I wasn't bringing up the medical records example to point out a comparative strength of Obama. I was actually trying to bring up a supposed point of commonality between me and you. It is crazy for people to continue to insist that McCain produce his medical records when he didn't have to show them to "concerned citizens" in the first place and when we have respected medical professionals saying their fears are unfounded. Just as it is crazy for those people to continue with "cover up" theories when he took the step of producing the records but didn't do it in a manner that would satisfy Oliver Stone or Michael Moore. I offered up the medical records example to show that, when you're guided by an agenda and not by "truth", as the birth certificate whiners are, no amount of proof will be enough to satisfy to you to the contrary.
And...we both know that the Supreme Court is not above implication in conspiracy theories (*cough* 2000 elections). So even providing the document for unsolicited in camera review by the Court would not necessarily satisfy these crazies. Besides, in all honesty, I think the people who need to see that certificate "in person" have already done so. Otherwise, it wouldn't just be nut-jobs demanding proof. -
I'm not saying that they have any reason to help him commit fraud.
But there are problems here.
1. Like i posted above, their method was sloppy here at best.
2. There is no mention where this came from. Who had the document, etc. Just the "obama campaign". Now, although a minor hickup. It is still one of those "whatif" points.
And finally, a completely personal oppinion.
3. Factcheck is part of the Annenberg legacy, which you may call "right" (although i wouldn't)
As soon as something carries an Academic stamp on it, I tend to put a left slant right along in with it. Universities aren't generally known to be conservative strongholds... -
Erik - again, I agree that factcheck could have done better. But courts don't operate on "whatifs". They operate on what can be proven in court. All that Obama's detractors have are "whatifs". Those types of claims get thrown out of court. I know, I've helped a few of them out the door. What Obama has produced is, as verified by Hawaii itself, far more than enough evidence to survive the legal challenges to his citizenship. I think that's a point on which we basically agree.
And, by the way, I know of (and attended) some pretty darn conservative universities...
-
-
The bottom line is that his grandmother has said that she was present when he was born in Kenya.
President elect Obama made sure to disqualify all his contenders for the Senate seat in his State, if they were not 100% qualified. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
If he is qualified, it only takes him to tell Hawaii to release his Birth Certificate and everybody would shut up about this topic.
The ball is in his court. The Citizens of the United States have the right to ensure that the Constitution is followed.-
Yes, that is the kicker in the entire case. However, i've heard about this recording of her. But i have yet to see anyone reliable with the capacity to translate what she is saying. Let alone the recording itself.
Now, with legal affidavits like that, this would indeed be reason enough to demand that the real BC is produced. -
Did you hear there was also a recording of Michelle Obama calling white people "whitey"? Did you here there was a recording of Michelle Obama calling the "African Press International" and saying, in effect, that Obama was not a natural citizen?
...Did you ever hear any of the actual recordings? NO And neither will you ever hear a recording of "Obama's grandmother" saying he was born in Kenya. Why? Because those tapes are urban legends, not reality. You owe it to yourself and to the people who you want to read your posts to learn to distinguish myth from reality. -
Well yes,
Here is my real problem with this whole case, This is not some unknown nutbag putting this up there.. The person who filed the lawsuit is the former Dept. Attourney General of Pennsylvania Philip Berg.
There are some compelling facts out there that alone should be enough to warrant this to just be settlend in a Federal Court.
If indeed there is nothing to it, what is the point of stonewalling those that believe there is? For someone who claims to be a supporter of the constitution, it just seems kinda strange to ignore those that set out to ensure it is protected.
You can see a lot of it here.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs
Edited to add... Mr. Berg is also a Life Long Democrat.. which makes it even more interesting. -
Mr. Berg also believes that the government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, fyi (which makes him just a little nutty, in my book). And he was a Hillary supporter and his suits were initiated during the primaries. So his agenda is pretty clear. Him being a democrat is of no moment.
I can't see the YouTube video (at work), but I'm sure I already know and have thoroughly addressed the "arguments" it advances. I'll check it out this evening and chime back in. -
The bottom line is that his grandmother has said that she was present when he was born in Kenya.
How about a link to whatever wingnut conspiracy site you read that on?
-
-
Well it was filed on August 27 i think.. Right at the end of the primaries.
All i'm saying is that if Obama can send a "fact checking" team to Alaska, how hard can it be to get a Birth Certificate delivered to a Judge? which would have ended the lawsuit right then and there.
Instead he chose to stonewall it, which in this case looks more than a little odd to me.
The funny thing is that although i still believe that there is little to this. Reading about it again as we are posting here Sure makes it all seem very fishy.-
I think that if there was a case, it would be in court by now.
That's what I'm seeing - if the claim has merit, than the courts will look at it - if it doesn't, not addressing it isn't stonewalling, it's simply not addressing a non issue. The courts are obviously not looking at it - which tells me it has no merit. -
well as much as i know that this is true. It sortof rings the wrong bell...
Someone once said "Guilty as sin, Free as a bird" after having relied on the fallacies of the courts. To not address this makes it an issue.
I still come back to the simplicity of it all, if indeed this is a non issue, like i said, how hard could it be to have a BC delievered to the judge?
Occams razor cuts both ways here. -
The question is whether or not a judge has even requested to look at it?
Why would he deliver it to a judge when there is no case?
Why wouldn't he deliver to the FBI, CIA, or any other alphabet soup agency in the government who is actually in charge of this kind of stuff instead? -
Occams razor doesn't apply here because there was never any discovery ordered in the case. Obama was never required to produce any documents, much less a birth certificate, in Berg's challenge. So the "simplest answer" is not "produce the document" when he was never asked to produce it. I think you're looking for the wrong fact finder here (as Anok also said). Courts only take an interest in legal issues when they acquire jurisdiction over those issues. My understanding is that Berg's claim was so bogus that it wasn't even able to meet that threshold (and that threshold is pretty low).
The fact finder you're looking for would be an investigative agency charged with ensuring that government employees/appointees/officials with access to top secret information have valid documents and haven't perpetrated major frauds (like...say...getting Hawaii and Illinois to participate in a lie that you're a U.S. citizen). Depending on the circumstances, that would be the CIA, FBI or DOJ (most likely DOJ, as that agency is my best guess for the agency with legal standing to bring a court case on this constitutional issue).
In that regard, I'll return to my oft repeated retort. If proper agencies (not to mention the GOP) weren't satisfied with Obama's citizenship claim, nut-jobs like Berg wouldn't be the only ones challenging his citizenship. I think you, me, and everyone else with half a brain knows that.
Besides, as I've also repeated throughout this post, Obama has "addressed" this, in a way that far exceeded any sense of obligation. The fact that he hasn't done so to the liking of the right-wing equivalent of Oliver Stone and Michael Moore is unimportant (remember my McCain medical records analogy). Nobody - not you, not me, not anyone - has to pass through hurdles to try and satisfy the unquinchable blood lust of the bottom feeders who are trying to propogate this nonsense. -
I don't know.
To claim that producing a BC would be too much to ask just doesn't seem right to me. Again, considering he can send an entire "Fact finding" team to alaska, sending a Stamped, signed BC to a Court doesn't seem to much to ask.
Instead he filed a motion to dismiss, which probably is both more complicated, time consuming, and costly than just sending over said BC.
It's that he would choose to fight the claim, rather than prove it wrong that irks me in this. -
Okay, let's put it all out on the table then. Berg - an alleged lawyer - actually cited Wikipedia in his complaint, to wit:
Wikipedia English Version under the subject "Barack Obama" states Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital. Wikipedia Italian Version under the subject "Queens Hospital" states Barack Obama was born in Queens Hospital.
I can't believe I even have to say this - WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOURCE!!!! Even slow-witted law students who meandered their way through first year Legal Research and Writing know that much! But it goes on from there. In the very next paragraph of the complaint (para. 19), Berg states:
There are further references circulating on the internet claiming examination of the hospital's records in Hawaii show no birthing records form Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama), Obama's mother.
So now, this "attorney" is citing "references circulating on the Internet" as evidence sufficient to establish a cause of action! You have got to be kidding me! If I had known any bozo with opposable thumbs could run into court trotting off nonsense I wouldn't have bothered dumping a considerable amount of my future earnings into getting that law degree. But Berg goes on:
There is a Canadian Birth Certificate posted on the Internet in the name of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr... (para 20).
Once again, this idiot has cited "the internet" as a source! The whole freakin World Wide Web is this dude's source!!!! And did he attach a copy of this alleged Canadian Birth Certificate? No. Did he do anything to establish that, if "the internet" does possess such a document, it was not photoshopped by some booger-picking high school sophomore? NO. He just said "the internet" has the document. In other words - "Google it, Your Honor."
The whole complaint's pretty funny. Here's the link: msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/berg.pdf
Erik, you know, deep down inside, what's going on here. We've got a wacked out conspiracy theorist with no idea what he's talking about who's willing to trump up any internet urban legend and claim it's "evidence" that the boogey man exists. I mean, seriously, this guy couldn't even muster up the intelligence to state an actual cause of action?! That's not a hard thing to do when you're actually bringing a remotely meritorious claim. And he had two bites at the apple - he also filed a "first amended complaint"! That's two strikes and a whammy! The guy's a disgrace to the legal profession.
You're a business counselor. If some rambling nut job tried to drag one of your clients into court with nonsensical crap like this, I'm sure you'd counsel them to swat the idiot away and not give him the decency of an answer. I would certainly so advise any of my clients. A person running for President shouldn't have to submit to an invasion of privacy just because some a-hole with a bar card asked him to do it.
By the way, both John McCain, during this campaign, and George Bush, during the 2000 campaign, received constitutional challenges to their right to run for office. See Hollander v. McCain (unpublished D.N.H. 2008); Jones v. Bush, 244 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2000). McCain's was a challenge to his claim of "natural born citizenship." McCain and Bush also moved to dismiss rather than answering the complaints. Attorneys know not to answer baseless law suits. Even if an answer takes less “time” than a motion to dismiss, answering winds up costing their clients oodles more money and time in the end. The fact that Obama (and McCain and Bush) chose a motion over an answer shouldn't irk you at all (for all the reasons I've stated here). -
"Google it, your honor"
OMG LMAO -
Anok – I thought you’d like that
Erik (or anyone else for that matter) – if you’re coming to my treatment of Berg’s case from this point, please start here: www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/to-everyone-who-wants-to-see-oba... – to get my full treatment. Otherwise…
Here’s an update: I hadn’t even looked at the Judge’s Order at the time I posted my comment above, but the Judge actually picks up my theme of Berg using spurious sources for his complaint:
To support his contention, Plaintiff cites sources as varied as the Rainbow Edition News Letter…and the television news tabloid Inside Edition. (page 4).
Judges only point out the validity of an attorney’s sources if they take issue with the sources and want to put the world on notice that the attorney is a quack (the opinion is a public document, after all). The judge went on to use quite strong language in stating when it was appropriate to dismiss a claim:
This practice “promotes the prompt and efficient disposition of cases and protects valuable judicial resources by expediting the dismissal of cases that lack ‘a shred of a valid claim.’ (page 7, note 6).
That’s further indication of the Judge’s view that Berg’s claim utterly lacked merit.
But here’s the kicker:. Obama bought a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. When a judge decides such a motion to dismiss, he is legally constrained to do so under the assumption that everything the plaintiff alleges is true. So, in effect, by granting the motion, the Judge was saying to Berg, “Even if I take your word for it, you still haven’t stated a claim that merits the Court’s attention.” That demonstrates just how weak this guy’s claim is.
The Judge also referred to Berg’s arguments as “venture[ing] into the unreasonable” (page 14), and to his claims as “frivolous and not worthy of discussion” (page 18).
…and Erik, I know you’re against frivolous lawsuits
The Judge’s opinion is 34 pages long, so he really gives considerable diligence to addressing each of Berg’s arguments.
Here’s the Opinion and Order (I hope you can access it):
www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/08D1256P.pdf -
I'm so gonna borrow your argument
-
Anok – you plagiarizer
Erik – Again, if you’re just coming to this discussion, don’t start here. Start here: www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/to-everyone-who-wants-to-see-oba....
I realize I wasn’t being abundantly clear in my explanation of what a 12(b)(6) motion effectively says. In addition to what the court is in effect saying by granting a 12(b)(6) motion, Obama, by filing the motion, is effectively saying (imitate Obama’s tone of voice while reading this ) “Well, look. Let’s assume I did submit my birth certificate to the court and what Berg is saying is still true. My position is that he still has no basis to challenge my candidacy.” This is effectively what a 12(b)(6) movant says by filing the motion. So what Obama did was, in effect, better than what you are irked by him not doing.
Now obviously, for the multitudinous reasons I’ve already put forth, Obama has done far more than what he should have done to address these crazies. I just wanted to put forth this explanation for your further edification. BTW – you’ll get my bill in the mail -
Yes i am a consultant. And you better believe that if someone claimed that a client of mine was lacking the Business License needed, I'd advice him to respond with a certified copy of the business license. Effectively forcing the judge to throw the case out on it's merits. Not have them file for a dismissal with the reasoning. We have the license, but we're not going to provide it.
Sorry, you may have a point in the cost portion, but I find that Any RFP can be handled without much cost at all. providing that you have everything they ask for. A motion however can't. So i'm going to go ahead and disagree with you there. -
Erik, I notice that you said "I am a consultant" and not "I am an attorney". I hope that, despite what you've said here, you wouldn't really advise a client on how to proceed in a legal action. In addition to the fact that you might find yourself in hot water over a little thing we call "the unauthorized practice of law", you'd be doing your client quite a bit of harm, since what you advise here isn't practical or even possible within the U.S. legal system. There are specific grounds upon which a party may move for dismissal pre-trial. "My evidence disproves your claim" is not one of them. Evidence is introduced at trial.
There is also a specific order of operations. Pre-trial motions are heard pre-trial. If they resolve the case, the trial (and so the introduction of substantive evidence) never happens. Most pre-trial issues MUST be introduced within a specific time frame in advance of trial or will be waived forever, so an attorney who failed to raise them in his ardor to get the evidence before the court would do his client a grave disservice and perhaps risk a malpractice suit. -
*imitate fake whiney voice* Come on Erik; why can’t I persuade you?! I put forth such good arguments.
*end fake whiney voice*
We really shouldn’t be disagreeing on this. Perhaps I haven’t relayed the potential gravity of the situation had Obama answered. We’re not just talking about simple RFPs here. We’re talking about Rogs, depositions, discovery motions, requests for admission, and a motion for summary judgment. And those things are assuming the case followed the normal course. Trust me. This one wouldn’t have. There would have been tons of motions practice to deal with with this nut bag. Believe me, this matter would not have been disposed of “without much cost at all”.
Besides, Berg’s original complaint named Obama, the DNC, the Federal Election Commission and 50 John Does as defendants. His Amended Complaint sought to add the The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, an entire Senate Committee, the PA Bureau of Commission, Elections and Legislation, and Senator Diane Feinstein as defendants. He would have sought discovery from all these people/agencies, tied up important parts of the federal and Pennsylvania governments in needless litigation for months (seriously), and cost the federal and PA governments thousands (if not hundreds of thousands of dollars) in the process. All so that it could have taken longer for a frivolous lawsuit to be thrown out.
Perhaps what isn’t clear is that Obama wouldn’t simply have made the case “go away” by providing his birth certificate. Had he done that, it would have been in the nature of either an answer or a filing that court would have interpreted as a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment motions aren’t decided from the standpoint that the Plaintiff’s averments are truthful, so discovery normally must take place before summary judgment is granted. If the judge interpreted a birth certificate production as an answer, it would have also sparked discovery.
It is not as simple as produce the certificate and the case goes away. There are federal procedural rules that must be followed and that would have all but required the case to proceed to (and possibly through) summary judgment had Obama produced the certificate. He saved federal and PA tax payers a lot of money by not producing it. Again I must say, I would never advise one of my clients to avail themselves of the litigation process to go toe to toe with a frivolous litigant. It’s simply too costly. As the Court so wonderfully said:
This practice “promotes the prompt and efficient disposition of cases and protects valuable judicial resources by expediting the dismissal of cases that lack ‘a shred of a valid claim.’ (page 7, note 6 of the opinion linked above).
But aside from all that, Erik, are you really telling me that nothing I’ve said has convinced you that Obama should not be obligated to entertain the fantasies of quacks like Berg? Not even this statement:
By the way, both John McCain, during this campaign, and George Bush, during the 2000 campaign, received constitutional challenges to their right to run for office. See Hollander v. McCain (unpublished D.N.H. 2008); Jones v. Bush, 244 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2000). McCain's was a challenge to his claim of "natural born citizenship." McCain and Bush also moved to dismiss rather than answering the complaints. Attorneys know not to answer baseless law suits. Even if an answer takes less “time” than a motion to dismiss, answering winds up costing their clients oodles more money and time in the end. The fact that Obama (and McCain and Bush) chose a motion over an answer shouldn't irk you at all (for all the reasons I've stated here).
Not even my recitation of the Court’s language in its Opinion and Order? Not one single argument I put forth in my discussion has persuaded you that you should not be “irked” by Obama not producing his birth certificate in Berg’s complaint? -
I wrote my reply before I read TotalAttorneys' reply. TotalAttoneys' analysis is right on and even goes farther than my analysis did, particularly with regard to pointing out that an attorney would risk a malpractice suit by effectively waiving a mandatory pre-trial motion to rush to the court with "evidence".
Inherently understanding that fact, I said the only device through which the certificate could have been filed would have been the (unheard of) attachment of the certificate to an answer (which, at the very least, would probably have triggered discovery rather than resolving the case) or through a summary judgment motion, which wouldn't have been decided in advance of discovery. As TotalAttorneys so aptly put it, the only way Obama could have entered the certificate as "evidence" would have been through trial, which necessarily follows discovery (with all its attendant time and cost). Showing up with the Cerfiticate on day one would not have made the case go away.
-
-
Again if you want a copy go to www.vitalcheck.com/ and order one.
-
And also this is supposed to be a legitimate copy, but I'm also a little hazy with this one although the scan is better.
www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate-
Well, like i said above... What about this one then?
i334.photobucket.com/albums/m432/csiunatc/Bogus.jpg
-
-
This issue's about to be put to bed:
Because Even Wackos Get Their Day in Court
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama’s U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama’s election.
The meeting of justices will coincide with a vigil by the filer’s supporters in Washington on the steps of the nation’s highest court.
The suit originally sought to stay the election, and was filed on behalf of Leo Donofrio against New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells.
Legal experts say the appeal has little chance of succeeding, despite appearing on the court’s schedule. Legal records show it is only the tip of an iceberg of nationwide efforts seeking to derail Obama’s election over accusations that he either wasn’t born a U.S. citizen or that he later renounced his citizenship in Indonesia...
belowthebeltway.com/2008/12/04/because-even-wackos-get-their-day-in-court/
But, as I say, most of the people who believe the BC's fake right now won't ever be satisfied. At this point, they're too emotionally invested in their delusion. Like the UFO nut who finds out the thing in his photo is just a balloon, they'll deny the truth until their dying day.-
Well, it remains to be seen whether or not they'll "get their day in court",doesn't it? All the court is considering is whether or not to hear the case.
-
-
He Indonesian or American? -
This is not some unknown nutbag putting this up there.. The person who filed the lawsuit is the former Dept. Attourney General of Pennsylvania Philip Berg.
The guy is a certifiable nutjob:
Berg claims to be a former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General, although any attorney admitted to the Bar of Pennsylvania that provides legal services for the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General is given this title.
Berg has involved himself with several controversial political cases. In 2004, Berg filed a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit on behalf of a World Trade Center maintenance worker against President George W. Bush and others alleging that the Bush and certain government officials conspired to bring about the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, which his complaint alleged were destroyed pursuant to the controlled demolition hypothesis put forward by the 9/11 Truth Movement.[2] The federal district court dismissed the suit. He challenged President George W. Bush on his right to conduct a war against terror and another against Saddam Hussein with only a congressional authorization.[3] In 2001 he demanded the disbarment of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas due to their participation in the case Bush v. Gore.
Berg was successfully sued for legal malpractice by former clients on whose behalf Berg had neglected to file a response to a complaint in an ERISA lawsuit, resulting in a default judgment being entered against the former clients.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_J._Berg-
It's funny how a title that sounds official immediately means he's not crazy.
Although I do kinda like and get a kick out of him going after Bush for the war. -
I kind of agree that the Supreme Court Justices who handed Bush the presidency should have been disbarred, but he's still a nut-job.
-
Yeah i think the nuttiness comes into play on what degree you happen to think these things.
Fleeting thought? Perhaps it's entertaining? May even be good in theory? You're OK.
Anything more than that and you're treading in dangerous waters -
On what grounds, Sati?
-
on the grounds they ended the recount, thereby handing the presidency to Bush.
-
Which rule of their particular states' disciplinary codes do you feel each violated by doing so?
-
Actually, they should have been impeached -- not disbarred.
-
-
Yes on what ground? Al Gore said so and that makes it true. The same Supreme Court where the liberal justices and Sandra Day O' Conner voted for imminent domain. Where a company can tear down your house without your consent and throw you a lump of cash. Even if it is something like condos.
-
WRONG! You fail again, boy. They left it up to the states to decide. Aren't right-wingers always pushing for more state's rights? Well, that's what they got in the decision.
-
Them darn liberal judicial activists! Let's all hate them. Grrr!!
How dare uphold Eminent Domain, just because it's in the Constitution! (caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html)
Why, it's un-American!
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
